AIM: Evaluate costs and benefits of erlotinib as 2nd or 3rd line treatment of advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus docetaxel, pemetrexed and best supportive care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-minimisation and cost-utility analysis were performed. Time horizon of two years. Portuguese National Health System (NHS) perspective was applied. Survival and time to progression were obtained from three clinical trials. Base-case analysis: 2nd or 3rd line patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were obtained from a UK study. Resource consumption was estimated by a Portuguese panel of experts. Costs were calculated according to official Portuguese databases (updated to 2008). Only direct health costs were applied. Annual discount rate: 5%. Sensitivity analysis included different subpopulations, a three year time horizon and a probabilistic analysis. RESULTS: The cost per patient was lower with erlotinib (26,478 euro) than docetaxel (29,262 euro) or pemetrexed (32,762 euro) and higher than best supportive care (16,112 euro). QALYs per patient were higher with erlotinib (0.250) than docetaxel (0.225), pemetrexed (0.241) or best supportive care (0.186). Erlotinib was dominant in the cost-utility analysis, with a lower cost and a higher efficacy than docetaxel and pemetrexed. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base-case analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: The use of erlotinib instead of docetaxel or pemetrexed could contribute to annual savings for the NHS (substitution rates: 5%-65%) ranging from 135,046 euro-1,755,602 euro (docetaxel replacement) and 291,801 euro-3,793,409 euro (pemetrexed replacement), with a gain in terms of QALYs.
AIM: Evaluate costs and benefits of erlotinib as 2nd or 3rd line treatment of advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus docetaxel, pemetrexed and best supportive care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-minimisation and cost-utility analysis were performed. Time horizon of two years. Portuguese National Health System (NHS) perspective was applied. Survival and time to progression were obtained from three clinical trials. Base-case analysis: 2nd or 3rd line patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were obtained from a UK study. Resource consumption was estimated by a Portuguese panel of experts. Costs were calculated according to official Portuguese databases (updated to 2008). Only direct health costs were applied. Annual discount rate: 5%. Sensitivity analysis included different subpopulations, a three year time horizon and a probabilistic analysis. RESULTS: The cost per patient was lower with erlotinib (26,478 euro) than docetaxel (29,262 euro) or pemetrexed (32,762 euro) and higher than best supportive care (16,112 euro). QALYs per patient were higher with erlotinib (0.250) than docetaxel (0.225), pemetrexed (0.241) or best supportive care (0.186). Erlotinib was dominant in the cost-utility analysis, with a lower cost and a higher efficacy than docetaxel and pemetrexed. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base-case analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: The use of erlotinib instead of docetaxel or pemetrexed could contribute to annual savings for the NHS (substitution rates: 5%-65%) ranging from 135,046 euro-1,755,602 euro (docetaxel replacement) and 291,801 euro-3,793,409 euro (pemetrexed replacement), with a gain in terms of QALYs.
Authors: Ansgar Lange; Anne Prenzler; Martin Frank; Heiko Golpon; Tobias Welte; J-Matthias von der Schulenburg Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 3.317